Joao Prado Maia wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Martin Jansen wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:19:44 -0500 (EST), Joao Prado Maia wrote:
> >
> > >If PEAR::DB is not abstracting the database what is the purpose of such a
> > >library ?
> >
> > To ease the life of lot's of programmers.
> >
> I probably used a bad choice of words. What I really meant was: What is
> the objective of PEAR::DB as a database abstraction library ? To abstract
> as much as possible like Metabase already does, or to provide a unified
> API to databases and leave the implementation related to database specific
> to the user himself ?
> It's okay to choose the latter, but I believe we should have a unique
> position on something like this, so we know what we are working for. A
> statement like this will be very helpful when people come to the mailing
> list saying that PEAR::DB doesn't abstract LOB's or any other exotic
> feature, as we can just reply "that's not our objective".
> Anyway, I think this is a good discussion.

PEAR DB's objective was to provide a common API.  This is why I did not
choose Metabase for PEAR in the first place, IMHO it was too huge and
complex.  Maybe the right thing would be to rewrite all of PHP's
database extensions to PEAR DB's API and provide Metabase as a layer on
top of that?  Something like that is what I hope comes out of this

 - Stig

PHP Database Mailing List (
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to